15 Oct 11
Since Cain is getting so much media attention so is his 999 tax proposal and critics are chirping. Here is an article I read recently.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/14/herman-cain-how-about-15-15-15/
I'm sure many of you have different opinions on how people should be taxed and I am interested in hearing those views.
What would be your tax proposal?
Originally posted by Metal BrainKill the income tax and move entirely to a national sales tax. It's automatically more progressive because rich people spend more money than poor people. It's also easier to administer and easier to give poor people assistance. Also, it encourages saving over spending.
Since Cain is getting so much media attention so is his 999 tax proposal and critics are chirping. Here is an article I read recently.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/14/herman-cain-how-about-15-15-15/
I'm sure many of you have different opinions on how people should be taxed and I am interested in hearing those views.
What would be your tax proposal?
Originally posted by dryhumpObviously you don't know what the term "progressive" means in economics. I suggest you look it up; a national sales tax is about as regressive a tax as one could think of.
Kill the income tax and move entirely to a national sales tax. It's automatically more progressive because rich people spend more money than poor people. It's also easier to administer and easier to give poor people assistance. Also, it encourages saving over spending.
15 Oct 11
Originally posted by no1marauderBS. Think it through. You could easily give sales tax waivers to poor folks, I'm thinking of something like a credit card. It would be a whole lot cheaper to administer also. all the stores are setup to do it already.
Obviously you don't know what the term "progressive" means in economics. I suggest you look it up; a national sales tax is about as regressive a tax as one could think of.
15 Oct 11
Originally posted by dryhumpIt would negate the wasteful recordkeeping and compliance required by an income tax, and most of the social engineering.
BS. Think it through. You could easily give sales tax waivers to poor folks, I'm thinking of something like a credit card. It would be a whole lot cheaper to administer also. all the stores are setup to do it already.
It would also reach the underground economy without an army of IRS agents.
It would be voluntary.
15 Oct 11
Originally posted by normbenignNonsense. You'd have to monitor every sale in every single State and collect from every single vendor. How in the world could you do that without a vast army of tax collectors?
It would negate the wasteful recordkeeping and compliance required by an income tax, and most of the social engineering.
It would also reach the underground economy without an army of IRS agents.
It would be voluntary.
It certainly wouldn't be "voluntary" to the businesses that would have to collect it. It would be a bookkeeping nightmare esp. as it would be on top of State levies.
15 Oct 11
Originally posted by dryhumpDon't be absurd. How could you possibly know what folks were poor and eligible for any waivers without retaining the present system of determining income? You'd have to keep the same administrative bureaucracy. And every waiver you gave would have to be made up by increasing the sales tax rate; proponents are already discussing a Federal rate of 30% on top of State and Local sales taxes. The mark up on items would be staggering, choking off consumption and depressing the economy even more.
BS. Think it through. You could easily give sales tax waivers to poor folks, I'm thinking of something like a credit card. It would be a whole lot cheaper to administer also. all the stores are setup to do it already.
If you want to simplify the tax code there are many ways to do so without sacrificing what little progressivity federal taxes provide.
15 Oct 11
Originally posted by no1marauder"Nonsense. You'd have to monitor every sale in every single State and collect from every single vendor. How in the world could you do that without a vast army of tax collectors?"
Nonsense. You'd have to monitor every sale in every single State and collect from every single vendor. How in the world could you do that without a vast army of tax collectors?
It certainly wouldn't be "voluntary" to the businesses that would have to collect it. It would be a bookkeeping nightmare esp. as it would be on top of State levies.
It works in the EU. Value Added Tax (VAT) is very efficiently collected througout Europe. Each vendor is a Tax Collector. (I know; I was self-employed in UK)
15 Oct 11
Originally posted by wolfgang59Are there less tax collectors per capita in the EU than in the US?
[b]"Nonsense. You'd have to monitor every sale in every single State and collect from every single vendor. How in the world could you do that without a vast army of tax collectors?"
It works in the EU. Value Added Tax (VAT) is very efficiently collected througout Europe. Each vendor is a Tax Collector. (I know; I was self-employed in UK)[/b]
15 Oct 11
Originally posted by no1marauderThe businesses already collect sales tax. The infrastructure is already in place for the change. It's certainly true that some bureaucracy would be necessary to verify income and issue the waiver. It's also true that the wealthy would pay less as a percentage of income, but let's face it that's true anyway. Here's an interesting article discussing the pros and cons.
Nonsense. You'd have to monitor every sale in every single State and collect from every single vendor. How in the world could you do that without a vast army of tax collectors?
It certainly wouldn't be "voluntary" to the businesses that would have to collect it. It would be a bookkeeping nightmare esp. as it would be on top of State levies.
http://economics.about.com/cs/taxpolicy/a/fairtax.htm
15 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by dryhumpIt's not true that the wealthy pay a smaller percentage of income now in taxes; the overall system is a bit progressive and the federal a bit more progressive. The "Fair Tax" would be a massive boon to the wealthy; they consume less of their income so they'd pay a lesser share and the top 1% make 75% of their income from capital gains and dividends and taxes on those sources of income would be eliminated. The whole scheme is just class warfare in favor of those who already benefit the most from this society.
The businesses already collect sales tax. The infrastructure is already in place for the change. It's certainly true that some bureaucracy would be necessary to verify income and issue the waiver. It's also true that the wealthy would pay less as a percentage of income, but let's face it that's true anyway. Here's an interesting article discussing the pros and cons.
http://economics.about.com/cs/taxpolicy/a/fairtax.htm
16 Oct 11
Originally posted by dryhumpOh, that's ridiculous. Whatever you're smoking...do share.
BS. Think it through. You could easily give sales tax waivers to poor folks, I'm thinking of something like a credit card. It would be a whole lot cheaper to administer also. all the stores are setup to do it already.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199224
16 Oct 11
Originally posted by dryhumpThat doesn't make it progressive. Actually, on consumer goods, poor people pay a much higher percentage of their income on taxable goods, and that's even before considering Cain's clueless proposal to tax food and medicine.
Kill the income tax and move entirely to a national sales tax. It's automatically more progressive because rich people spend more money than poor people. It's also easier to administer and easier to give poor people assistance. Also, it encourages saving over spending.
25 Oct 11
Looks like other republican candidates are going to release their own tax plans. Perry just released his plan today and Romney is working on his plan.
I think it is worth noting that Ron Paul announced his plan to balance the budget a few days ago and all of this is is distracting people from that.